1. It's well known that Patriarch St. Tarasius of Constantinople, on behalf of the Greek Church, confessed dogmatically at Nicaea II, that that "the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of Life, proceeds (ekporeumenon) from the Father through the Word[/Son] and is acknowledged to be Himself God". (Mansi, XII, 1122 D). This per Filium clause, as it is called, seems directly opposed to the later error of Monopatrism. Some of the Greeks used to claim the Spirit proceeds from Father only, just like the Word is begotten of the Father only; how can that be reconciled with St. Tarasius' confession? http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/pccufilq.htm

And this for 2 reasons (1) First because, as the Greeks say, ekporeusis/ekporeoumenon in their language, refers always and only to eternal procession. Thus, logically, the per Filium dogma requires that the eternal procession of the Spirit flows through the Son, not His temporal mission only. (2) Second, ekporeusis always refers to a hypostatic procession; so much so that St. Cyril sometimes uses it to refer to the Son's relation to the Father. It follows that the hypostatic procession of the Spirit from the Father is mediated through the Word. Thus, the Spirit proceeds from Father and Son eternally.

2. For Syrian Orthodox and those who don't accept Nicaea II as such, but still question the Filioque, we have this confession of Bishop St. Leontius of Caesarea, personal friend of St. Gregory the Illuminator, Apostle of Armenia, at Nicaea on behalf of the 318 holy Fathers gathered there - "the Spirit proceeds from the Father, and is proper to the Son and gushes forth from Him." (Mansi II:868CD). See http://catholicpatristics.blogspot.in/2009/08/filioque.html?m=1 Again, though the Holy Spirit's procession was not required to be defined at Nicaea against the Arian heretics, this clearly was always the Church's Faith should the need arise.

If someone claims "gushing forth from the Son" does not presuppose hypostatic distinction and a personal relation, there are 2 simple considerations: (1) first, to say "proper to" always indicates a personal property. Thus, it is a personal property of the Spirit to come forth through the Son. (2) second, St. Leontius is clearly speaking about the Spirit proceeding from the Father and coming through the Son in the same context. Thus, He says that the Spirit in proceeding from the Father is also proper to the Son and comes forth from Him.

The Greek Fathers only avoid saying the ekporeusis of the Spirit is from the Son, because of the limitations of language. They clearly do not avoid saying, and even confess dogmatically, that the ekporeoumenon of the Spirit is from the Father through the Son. Do the Greek Orthodox on this forum believe the Holy Spirit's ekporeusis or eternal procession is from the Father and through the Son?

Logged

"My daughter, look at My Heart surrounded with thorns with which ungrateful men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You, at least, try to console Me, and say that I promise to assist at the hour of death, with all the graces necessary for salvation, all those who, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months go to confession and receive Holy Communion, recite five decades of the Rosary and keep Me company for a quarter of an hour" - The Theotokos to Sr. Lucia.

And the same beloved Apostle also wrote, Rev 22:1 "And he shewed me a river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding from the throne of God and of the Lamb." The Greek word used here is one and the same, ekporeusis. St. Ambrose understands this of the Holy Spirit explicitly, as even the Lord in the Gospel tells us the Holy Spirit is Living Water. St. Athanasius says He is an eternally flowing Fountain of Life and that jointly with the Father, the Son is the fount of the Spirit. St. Ambrose says many have handed this down, the Spirit is Life, is represented as Water, as a flowing fountain of life etc.

St. Augustine points out that the Holy Spirit is also signified as Breath of Life. And as God breathed life into Adam of old, so the Son breathed life into His Apostles, that all may know the Spirit proceeds also from the Son; though from the Father principally. This is the Catholic doctrine. And all of it is recorded by the same beloved Apostle, St. John. The waters flowing from the pierced Heart of Christ also declare the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.

Logged

"My daughter, look at My Heart surrounded with thorns with which ungrateful men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You, at least, try to console Me, and say that I promise to assist at the hour of death, with all the graces necessary for salvation, all those who, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months go to confession and receive Holy Communion, recite five decades of the Rosary and keep Me company for a quarter of an hour" - The Theotokos to Sr. Lucia.

Hah! Yet it is you who are denying the clear and direct statement of St. Tarasius, arguing for a contradiction with St. John. Your argument is based on even less than mere silence and is worse than Sola Scripture. For as Scripture saying we are justified by faith does not prove we are jusified by faith only, but by faith through works of love, as St. Paul says; and as the fact that revelation is transmitted by Scripture does not mean it is transmitted through Scripture only but rather through Scripture and Tradition both, as the same Apostle affirms; so you need to prove positively that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father only. That word for word contradicts the declared doctrine of Nicaea II. The Greek Church historically had a problem with the per Filium. "Photius and the other later Eastern controversialists dropped or rejected the per Filium as being nearly equivalent to the ex Filio or Filioque" (Schaff, History of the Christian Church). Patriarch Bekkos and the like are the admirable exceptions in the medieval Greek Church, and they were the most tireless advocates of Holy Unia between the Churches; for having known and received from their own Fathers and Eastern Tradition that the ekporeouemenon of the Holy Spirit is from the Father through the Son, they correctly and quickly discerned that the Latin Fathers were in admirable agreement with the Greek Fathers; and that therefore once this has been realized, there is no reason for East and West to continue in schism.

Logged

"My daughter, look at My Heart surrounded with thorns with which ungrateful men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You, at least, try to console Me, and say that I promise to assist at the hour of death, with all the graces necessary for salvation, all those who, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months go to confession and receive Holy Communion, recite five decades of the Rosary and keep Me company for a quarter of an hour" - The Theotokos to Sr. Lucia.

Does not the eternally begotten Son of the Father breathe ( send) the Holy Spirit to the Apostles? Does not the Holy Spirit Who proceeds from the Father baptize the eternally begotten Son in the Jordan?

As you can see, Mina, the matter is resolved with those who admit (1) the Spirit proceeds eternally (which is what ekporeusis means) from the Father through the Son - it is not resolved for those who claim (2) the Spirit comes through the Son temporally only. The official representatives of your Church (see excerpt from study below) have agreed to (1). Some on this thread are still defending (2).

Vanyho, the Holy Spirit is not coming to you or to us in His eternal spiration. He is the Lord and giver of Life Who proceeds eternally from the Father through the Son. If the world had never been created, He would still proceed by ekporeomenon from the Father through the Son, just like the Son is eternally begotten from the Father.

Hi recent convert, at the Lord's Baptism, as you know, the waters did not make holy the Man, but the Man made holy the waters, that baptism for us may be sanctified. Similarly, He did not then obtain the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as if He had it not before, but the heavens were opened to show what would happen to us in Baptism - that is, we receive the Holy Spirit when baptized. Sure, the Son sends the Holy Spirit, He said the Spirit would not come unless He went up to heaven; the question is, does the temporal sending in the divine economy reflect the eternal order in the divine ontology? We Latins say yes and in the Greek Church have said no.

Why is it none of the divine Persons is said to send the Father? Because the Father is the Monarch in the Trinity, even eternally. The Father sends the Son, the Son does not send the Father; the temporal sending is one of the many ways the Holy Trinity manifests or explains to us what was the eternal relations. Why does Jesus say the Holy Spirit will not come to us unless He goes to the Father? To show us, by a kind of analogy, what the eternal relationship was. For a similar reason, He breathed His Spirit on the Apostles.

Mina, to be more clear, if - but that is a big if and is not always true with everybody - it is acknowledged on both sides that the spiration of the Spirit from the Father through the Son is co-eternal with the generation of the Word, as the study below admits, then of course the Faith confessed by each is identical. All who confess what the study below confess what we Catholics believe.

Quote

The Orthodox Orient has, however, given a happy expression to this relationship with the formula dia tou Uiou ekporeuomenon (who takes his origin from the Father by or through the Son). St Basil already said of the Holy Spirit: "Through the Son (dia tou Uiou), who is one, he is joined to the Father, who is one, and by himself completes the Blessed Trinity" (Treatise on the Holy Spirit, XVIII, 45, Sources chrétiennes 17 bis, p. 408). St Maximus the Confessor said: "By nature (jusei) the Holy Spirit in his being (kat’ ousian) takes substantially (ousiodwV) his origin (ekporeuomenon) from the Father through the Son who is begotten (di’ Uiou gennhqentoV)" (Quaestiones ad Thalassium, LXIII, PG 90, 672 C). We find this again in St John Damascene: "(o Pathr) aei hn, ecwn ex eautou ton autou logon, kai dia tou logou autou ex eautou to Pnewma autou ekporeuomenon”, in English: “I say that God is always Father since he has always his Word coming from himself, and through his Word, having his Spirit issuing from him” (Dialogus contra Manichaeos 5, PG 94, 1512 B, ed. B. Kotter, Berlin 1981, p. 354; cf. PG 94, 848-849 A). This aspect of the Trinitarian mystery was confessed at the seventh Ecumenical council, meeting at Nicaea in 787, by the Patriarch of Constantinople, St Tarasius, who developed the Symbol as follows: "to Pneuma to agion, to kurion kai zwopoion, to ek tou Patros dia tou Uiou ekporeuomenon” (Mansi, XII, 1122 D) ...

The Father only generates the Son by breathing (proballein in Greek) through him the Holy Spirit and the Son is only begotten by the Father insofar as the spiration (probolh in Greek) passes through him. The Father is Father of the One Son only by being for him and through him the origin of the Holy Spirit.8

The Spirit does not precede the Son, since the Son characterizes as Father the Father from whom the Spirit takes his origin, according to the Trinitarian order.9 But the spiration of the Spirit from the Father takes place by and through (the two senses of dia in Greek) the generation of the Son, to which it gives its Trinitarian character.

Logged

"My daughter, look at My Heart surrounded with thorns with which ungrateful men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You, at least, try to console Me, and say that I promise to assist at the hour of death, with all the graces necessary for salvation, all those who, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months go to confession and receive Holy Communion, recite five decades of the Rosary and keep Me company for a quarter of an hour" - The Theotokos to Sr. Lucia.

And the same beloved Apostle also wrote, Rev 22:1 "And he shewed me a river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding from the throne of God and of the Lamb."

As Sharbel pointed out: This is pure speculative interpretatiom vis a vis a direct, crystal clear statement from our Lord Himself in John 15:26

This issue has been rehashed and answered numerous times on this board yet you continue to be obstinate and offer nothing in the way of substantive rebuttal. I'm willing to bet that the times you have discussed the True Presence with a Protestant you have felt it sufficient to quote our Lord's words "This is my Body" in order to make your point. I'm also sure you are familiar with the many rhetorical tricks Protestants use in order to get around this concept. That seems to be exactly what you do on this particular issue. And like a Protestant, once your error is clearly refuted you simply dig in your heels.

I thought we were being spared your trolling and posting during Lent?

« Last Edit: March 11, 2018, 08:15:18 AM by 123abc »

Logged

Saved by the Grace of Christ apart from works.

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.... Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them...

Vanyho, the Holy Spirit is not coming to you or to us in His eternal spiration. He is the Lord and giver of Life Who proceeds eternally from the Father through the Son. If the world had never been created, He would still proceed by ekporeomenon from the Father through the Son, just like the Son is eternally begotten from the Father.

I intentionally asked you this question, in the hope that something triggers in you, that you can't just put God Who is above/outside of creation into your little scholastic formulas and make calculations, and then declare these speculations which you have not even experienced as facts. This is blasphemy and slander.

The quote "proceeds from the Father" in the Creed is direct quote from the Gospel of John where Christ send the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, obviously this sending is not a reference of the eternal hypostatic origin of the Holy Spirit but to His mission, so we know exactly what the creed is saying when we speak of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and Him being send by Christ(temportal mission) to the Apostles. The Church experienced this and proclaimed it in the Creed.

And the same beloved Apostle also wrote, Rev 22:1 "And he shewed me a river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding from the throne of God and of the Lamb."

It is very unfortunate that this needs to be explained over and over again and you are not at all willing to listen, the book of revelation describes an event that is occurring in time, namely after the day of judgement. To claim that this is the hypostatic origin/begining of the Holy Spirit is the same the same as to demote Him to a creature. What a blasphemy.

you can't just put God Who is above/outside of creation into your little scholastic formulas

This is not a scholastic formula, sorry. This is Nicene doctrine formulated by an 8th century Greek Patriarch in Ecumenical Council. The ekporeuomenon or eternal procession of the Holy Spirit is from the Father and through the Son; not from the Father only.

1. According to you, when St. Tarasius says, "the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son", he means, the Spirit proceeds from the Father eternally but from the Son temporally? Is this what you are claiming, Vanyho? The explicit meaning of ekporeusis is proceed eternally, the Greek Church has always said that in discussions between Greeks and Latins. That is why his formula proves the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from Father through the Son. Ekporeusis is an eternal procession and it is that eternal procession that is mediated through the Son. To say an eternal procession - which exists and would exist even if there were no creatures - somehow would make the Holy Ghost less than God is a non sequitur. The Holy Ghost is consubstantial with the Father and the Son by proceeding from Them, this is what the Latin Fathers unanimously handed down to us.

2. Many of our Fathers intepret the Fount of Life as the Holy Spirit. E.g. St. Ambrose "Learn now that as the Father is the Fount of Life, so, too, many have stated that the Son is signified as the Fount of Life; so that, he says, with Thee, Almighty God, Thy Son is the Fount of Life. That is the Fount of the Holy Spirit, for the Spirit is Life, as the Lord says: 'The words which I speak unto you are Spirit and Life,' for where the Spirit is, there also is Life; and where Life is, is also the Holy Spirit." So too St. Athanasius, "David sings in the psalm, saying: 'For with You is the fount of Life; because jointly with the Father the Son is indeed the fount of the Holy Spirit." This is a very common patristic analogy, Father, Son and Spirit represented as an eternal fount of the waters of life, or of living water flowing from an eternal fountain.

123abc, Protestantism is giving your private interpretation. from the Father does not mean from the Father only, just like justified by faith does not mean justified by faith only. We interpret Scripture through the ecumenical councils - and those councils say the Spirit proceeds not from the Father without the Son, or from the Father to the exclusion of the Son, as you seem to posit; but from the Father through the Son.

The Catholic Church, through St. Thomas, in Florence, in that study, and in Her official Catechism makes clear that She accepts the formulation from the Father through the Son as legitimate and complementary to from the Father and the Son.

Quote

248 At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father's character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he "who proceeds from the Father", it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son.77 The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque) ... This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.

« Last Edit: March 11, 2018, 10:18:10 AM by Xavier »

Logged

"My daughter, look at My Heart surrounded with thorns with which ungrateful men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You, at least, try to console Me, and say that I promise to assist at the hour of death, with all the graces necessary for salvation, all those who, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months go to confession and receive Holy Communion, recite five decades of the Rosary and keep Me company for a quarter of an hour" - The Theotokos to Sr. Lucia.

I think the main problem is that there was an uneasy tolerance for the filioque in the east for centuries but that ended. It ended when we were falsely excommunicated for not embracing a doctrine that we had never accepted. Surely I do not think this matter gives me salvation over a Catholic Christian but it unfortunately prevents us from sharing communion.

123abc, Protestantism is giving your private interpretation. from the Father does not mean from the Father only, just like justified by faith does not mean justified by faith only. We interpret Scripture through the ecumenical councils - and those councils say the Spirit proceeds not from the Father without the Son, or from the Father to the exclusion of the Son, as you seem to posit; but from the Father through the Son.

Wrong. The Vatican doctrine states that the Son and the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father as from one spiration. As has been explained to you numerous times this is a completely different understanding from through the Son in the temporal economy of our salvation. You are attempting to state that the Vatican church does not teach what it clearly does in order to muddy the waters and posit that we really teach the same thing and that it is only because we Orthodox are prideful and stiff necked that we do not accept union with Rome.

Your Scriptural comparison pertaining to 'faith alone' is such a stretch that I do not believe it even requires refutation since the invalidity of that argument should be apparent to all.

Logged

Saved by the Grace of Christ apart from works.

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.... Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them...

Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

The Vatican doctrine states that the Son and the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father as from one spiration.

I think you made a typo. One Spiration of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son. Not Son and the Holy Spirit proceed from one spiration.

1. Anyway, yes, the Catholic doctrine is that the Holy Spirit proceeds by one eternal spiration from the Father and the Son. We reject the notion of a purely temporal procession through the Son only. I am asking you, how do you square the dogmatic confession of St. Tarasius, your Patriarch, professing the Faith of the Greek Church using the word for eternal procession - ekperoumenon: "το Πνευμα το αγιον, το κυριον και ζωοποιον, το εκ του Πατροσ δια του Υιου εκπορευομενον."("And in the Holy Spirit, Who proceeds from the Father through the Son, and Who is acknowledged to be Himself God)

Will you actually claim this refers to temporal spiration only? Will you deny they refer to an eternal procession of the Spirit from the Father through the Word? The study proves by 4 authorities, from St. Basil to St. Tarasius that there is an eternal hypostatic relationship between the Word and the Spirit expressed in these words. Reread this part: "The Orthodox Orient has, however, given a happy expression to this relationship with the formula dia tou Uiou ekporeuomenon (who takes his origin from the Father by or through the Son)." Note the words takes His origin from the Father by or through the Son, this manifestly concerns eternal procession.

2. Secondly, the same study states that the spiration/procession of the Spirit through the Son happens along with the generation of the Son. Surely, you will not deny the generation of the Son is eternal. How, then, can you deny that the spiration of the Spirit from Father through the Son is co-eternal with the eternal generation/begetting of the Son from the Father, and not temporal only? Do you believe what the representatives of your Church confessed in this study or do you disagree with it?

Note the words: "The Father only generates the Son by breathing (proballein in Greek) through him the Holy Spirit and the Son is only begotten by the Father insofar as the spiration (probolh in Greek) passes through him ..." and etc. These affirm the spiration of the Spirit from the Father through the Son is co-eternal with the eternal generation of the Son.

« Last Edit: March 13, 2018, 04:12:24 AM by Xavier »

Logged

"My daughter, look at My Heart surrounded with thorns with which ungrateful men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You, at least, try to console Me, and say that I promise to assist at the hour of death, with all the graces necessary for salvation, all those who, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months go to confession and receive Holy Communion, recite five decades of the Rosary and keep Me company for a quarter of an hour" - The Theotokos to Sr. Lucia.

And the son. Through the son. Are two very different words. Are you some how trying to conflate the two as meaning the same thing

Hi Tzimis. Didn't mean to ignore this. The question is whether the procession/spiration is eternal or it is temporal only. If the Greek Church says it is temporal, we agree there is a substantial difference; but if the Greek Church acknowledges an eternal procession from the Father through the Son, then there is only a difference of terminology. Pope Adrian I explained this in a letter to Charlemagne. Charlemagne is probably about the only one in the west who had a problem with "through the Son". But the Pope corrected him.

At Florence, Greeks and Latins agreed to an eternal spiration; they held from the Father and the Son and from the Father through the Son are equivalent, with the approval of all 5 Patriarchs. St. Thomas Aquinas also held the same on the per Filium, citing St. Hilary "May I receive Your Spirit Who takes His Being through Your Only Begotten". The Spirit's Being is Eternal, so St. Hilary is teaching He is eternally through the Son. The Council of Lyons declared eternal and not merely temporal spiration.

For an analogy, it's one and the same to say heat proceeds from the sun and its light, to say heat proceeds from sun through light, or heat proceeds from sunlight.

« Last Edit: March 13, 2018, 05:10:47 AM by Xavier »

Logged

"My daughter, look at My Heart surrounded with thorns with which ungrateful men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You, at least, try to console Me, and say that I promise to assist at the hour of death, with all the graces necessary for salvation, all those who, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months go to confession and receive Holy Communion, recite five decades of the Rosary and keep Me company for a quarter of an hour" - The Theotokos to Sr. Lucia.

I think Xavier states his theology well but Orthodoxy cannot accept the filioque. We never accepted it but Rome tried to force it on us removing the possibility of allowances in a possible theological grey area. Obviously it is absurd harbor negative sentiments over this towards Rome, but, the impasse seems unresolvable.

As you can see, Mina, the matter is resolved with those who admit (1) the Spirit proceeds eternally (which is what ekporeusis means) from the Father through the Son - it is not resolved for those who claim (2) the Spirit comes through the Son temporally only. The official representatives of your Church (see excerpt from study below) have agreed to (1). Some on this thread are still defending (2).

Vanyho, the Holy Spirit is not coming to you or to us in His eternal spiration. He is the Lord and giver of Life Who proceeds eternally from the Father through the Son. If the world had never been created, He would still proceed by ekporeomenon from the Father through the Son, just like the Son is eternally begotten from the Father.

Hi recent convert, at the Lord's Baptism, as you know, the waters did not make holy the Man, but the Man made holy the waters, that baptism for us may be sanctified. Similarly, He did not then obtain the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as if He had it not before, but the heavens were opened to show what would happen to us in Baptism - that is, we receive the Holy Spirit when baptized. Sure, the Son sends the Holy Spirit, He said the Spirit would not come unless He went up to heaven; the question is, does the temporal sending in the divine economy reflect the eternal order in the divine ontology? We Latins say yes and in the Greek Church have said no.

Why is it none of the divine Persons is said to send the Father? Because the Father is the Monarch in the Trinity, even eternally. The Father sends the Son, the Son does not send the Father; the temporal sending is one of the many ways the Holy Trinity manifests or explains to us what was the eternal relations. Why does Jesus say the Holy Spirit will not come to us unless He goes to the Father? To show us, by a kind of analogy, what the eternal relationship was. For a similar reason, He breathed His Spirit on the Apostles.

Mina, to be more clear, if - but that is a big if and is not always true with everybody - it is acknowledged on both sides that the spiration of the Spirit from the Father through the Son is co-eternal with the generation of the Word, as the study below admits, then of course the Faith confessed by each is identical. All who confess what the study below confess what we Catholics believe.

Quote

The Orthodox Orient has, however, given a happy expression to this relationship with the formula dia tou Uiou ekporeuomenon (who takes his origin from the Father by or through the Son). St Basil already said of the Holy Spirit: "Through the Son (dia tou Uiou), who is one, he is joined to the Father, who is one, and by himself completes the Blessed Trinity" (Treatise on the Holy Spirit, XVIII, 45, Sources chrétiennes 17 bis, p. 408). St Maximus the Confessor said: "By nature (jusei) the Holy Spirit in his being (kat’ ousian) takes substantially (ousiodwV) his origin (ekporeuomenon) from the Father through the Son who is begotten (di’ Uiou gennhqentoV)" (Quaestiones ad Thalassium, LXIII, PG 90, 672 C). We find this again in St John Damascene: "(o Pathr) aei hn, ecwn ex eautou ton autou logon, kai dia tou logou autou ex eautou to Pnewma autou ekporeuomenon”, in English: “I say that God is always Father since he has always his Word coming from himself, and through his Word, having his Spirit issuing from him” (Dialogus contra Manichaeos 5, PG 94, 1512 B, ed. B. Kotter, Berlin 1981, p. 354; cf. PG 94, 848-849 A). This aspect of the Trinitarian mystery was confessed at the seventh Ecumenical council, meeting at Nicaea in 787, by the Patriarch of Constantinople, St Tarasius, who developed the Symbol as follows: "to Pneuma to agion, to kurion kai zwopoion, to ek tou Patros dia tou Uiou ekporeuomenon” (Mansi, XII, 1122 D) ...

The Father only generates the Son by breathing (proballein in Greek) through him the Holy Spirit and the Son is only begotten by the Father insofar as the spiration (probolh in Greek) passes through him. The Father is Father of the One Son only by being for him and through him the origin of the Holy Spirit.8

The Spirit does not precede the Son, since the Son characterizes as Father the Father from whom the Spirit takes his origin, according to the Trinitarian order.9 But the spiration of the Spirit from the Father takes place by and through (the two senses of dia in Greek) the generation of the Son, to which it gives its Trinitarian character.

Sure, I don't think there's problem with much of what you write. I just think you need to consider your audience and what they read and how they read it.

I will take your word for it. If there are Greek fathers who do use "ekperoumenon" the Son, then I find it interesting. I have never really been convinced that there are doctrinal differences on this issue.

However, I do want to highlight that most of the time, the word tends to be referred to as an eternal origin, not an eternal/natural relationship. I'm not sure if that makes any sense to you. I don't think any theologian would disagree that the Spirit eternally has been sent from the Son because that would solidify the natural uncreated relationship that occurs. But to be "proceeded" from as if to denote eternal origin must again be the Father alone, as I understand that's what the Catechism teaches.

St. Irenaeus teaches that the Son and Spirit are the two arms of God. I don't know which other Church father said that the Son and Spirit are the words and breath of the Father in one shot. Therefore, if one can say the breath proceeds from the word, the reverse might also be true. Wherever the Spirit is, there is the Son and Father, and wherever the Son is, there is the Spirit and the Father.

A while ago, one of our Coptic scholars provided for us these beautiful translations from a tenth century Coptic abbott. Take a look at this:

This is a mystical understanding of the Trinity as Love and how the relationship of the hypostases represent that uncreated nature of Love. There is a "perichoresis" here that is very important to highlight. I think we cannot ignore this in our contemplation of the Trinity.

I am pretty sure if you read this, you might think this is what you have been saying all along. If an EO reads this, they will also say the same. So we need to take a step back rather than attacking each other to again ask and think deeply, "what do you mean".

There was this argument that if you were to say that the eternal origin of the Spirit is also from the Son, then that would make the Son "Father", not "Son". I think there is merit in that. This is an argument actually made by John of Damascus, in chapter 8 of his first book on the Orthodox Faith, way before the Filioque controversy blew up. So I think you need to take the quotes in context and not jump to conclusions on what this or that father meant.

Is there an eternal relationship? Yes. But is the Spirit eternally originate from the Son? I think you even agree that that is a big no no. I am under the impression that's what the Roman Catholic Church says, and I think that should be the end of the discussion.

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

And the son. Through the son. Are two very different words. Are you some how trying to conflate the two as meaning the same thing

Hi Tzimis. Didn't mean to ignore this. The question is whether the procession/spiration is eternal or it is temporal only. If the Greek Church says it is temporal, we agree there is a substantial difference; but if the Greek Church acknowledges an eternal procession from the Father through the Son, then there is only a difference of terminology. Pope Adrian I explained this in a letter to Charlemagne. Charlemagne is probably about the only one in the west who had a problem with "through the Son". But the Pope corrected him.

At Florence, Greeks and Latins agreed to an eternal spiration; they held from the Father and the Son and from the Father through the Son are equivalent, with the approval of all 5 Patriarchs. St. Thomas Aquinas also held the same on the per Filium, citing St. Hilary "May I receive Your Spirit Who takes His Being through Your Only Begotten". The Spirit's Being is Eternal, so St. Hilary is teaching He is eternally through the Son. The Council of Lyons declared eternal and not merely temporal spiration.

For an analogy, it's one and the same to say heat proceeds from the sun and its light, to say heat proceeds from sun through light, or heat proceeds from sunlight.

I like your analogy. So where does the heat and light have there origins?

As you can see, Mina, the matter is resolved with those who admit (1) the Spirit proceeds eternally (which is what ekporeusis means) from the Father through the Son - it is not resolved for those who claim (2) the Spirit comes through the Son temporally only. The official representatives of your Church (see excerpt from study below) have agreed to (1). Some on this thread are still defending (2).

Vanyho, the Holy Spirit is not coming to you or to us in His eternal spiration. He is the Lord and giver of Life Who proceeds eternally from the Father through the Son. If the world had never been created, He would still proceed by ekporeomenon from the Father through the Son, just like the Son is eternally begotten from the Father.

Hi recent convert, at the Lord's Baptism, as you know, the waters did not make holy the Man, but the Man made holy the waters, that baptism for us may be sanctified. Similarly, He did not then obtain the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as if He had it not before, but the heavens were opened to show what would happen to us in Baptism - that is, we receive the Holy Spirit when baptized. Sure, the Son sends the Holy Spirit, He said the Spirit would not come unless He went up to heaven; the question is, does the temporal sending in the divine economy reflect the eternal order in the divine ontology? We Latins say yes and in the Greek Church have said no.

Why is it none of the divine Persons is said to send the Father? Because the Father is the Monarch in the Trinity, even eternally. The Father sends the Son, the Son does not send the Father; the temporal sending is one of the many ways the Holy Trinity manifests or explains to us what was the eternal relations. Why does Jesus say the Holy Spirit will not come to us unless He goes to the Father? To show us, by a kind of analogy, what the eternal relationship was. For a similar reason, He breathed His Spirit on the Apostles.

Mina, to be more clear, if - but that is a big if and is not always true with everybody - it is acknowledged on both sides that the spiration of the Spirit from the Father through the Son is co-eternal with the generation of the Word, as the study below admits, then of course the Faith confessed by each is identical. All who confess what the study below confess what we Catholics believe.

Quote

The Orthodox Orient has, however, given a happy expression to this relationship with the formula dia tou Uiou ekporeuomenon (who takes his origin from the Father by or through the Son). St Basil already said of the Holy Spirit: "Through the Son (dia tou Uiou), who is one, he is joined to the Father, who is one, and by himself completes the Blessed Trinity" (Treatise on the Holy Spirit, XVIII, 45, Sources chrétiennes 17 bis, p. 408). St Maximus the Confessor said: "By nature (jusei) the Holy Spirit in his being (kat’ ousian) takes substantially (ousiodwV) his origin (ekporeuomenon) from the Father through the Son who is begotten (di’ Uiou gennhqentoV)" (Quaestiones ad Thalassium, LXIII, PG 90, 672 C). We find this again in St John Damascene: "(o Pathr) aei hn, ecwn ex eautou ton autou logon, kai dia tou logou autou ex eautou to Pnewma autou ekporeuomenon”, in English: “I say that God is always Father since he has always his Word coming from himself, and through his Word, having his Spirit issuing from him” (Dialogus contra Manichaeos 5, PG 94, 1512 B, ed. B. Kotter, Berlin 1981, p. 354; cf. PG 94, 848-849 A). This aspect of the Trinitarian mystery was confessed at the seventh Ecumenical council, meeting at Nicaea in 787, by the Patriarch of Constantinople, St Tarasius, who developed the Symbol as follows: "to Pneuma to agion, to kurion kai zwopoion, to ek tou Patros dia tou Uiou ekporeuomenon” (Mansi, XII, 1122 D) ...

The Father only generates the Son by breathing (proballein in Greek) through him the Holy Spirit and the Son is only begotten by the Father insofar as the spiration (probolh in Greek) passes through him. The Father is Father of the One Son only by being for him and through him the origin of the Holy Spirit.8

The Spirit does not precede the Son, since the Son characterizes as Father the Father from whom the Spirit takes his origin, according to the Trinitarian order.9 But the spiration of the Spirit from the Father takes place by and through (the two senses of dia in Greek) the generation of the Son, to which it gives its Trinitarian character.

Sure, I don't think there's problem with much of what you write. I just think you need to consider your audience and what they read and how they read it.

I will take your word for it. If there are Greek fathers who do use "ekperoumenon" the Son, then I find it interesting. I have never really been convinced that there are doctrinal differences on this issue.

However, I do want to highlight that most of the time, the word tends to be referred to as an eternal origin, not an eternal/natural relationship. I'm not sure if that makes any sense to you. I don't think any theologian would disagree that the Spirit eternally has been sent from the Son because that would solidify the natural uncreated relationship that occurs. But to be "proceeded" from as if to denote eternal origin must again be the Father alone, as I understand that's what the Catechism teaches.

St. Irenaeus teaches that the Son and Spirit are the two arms of God. I don't know which other Church father said that the Son and Spirit are the words and breath of the Father in one shot. Therefore, if one can say the breath proceeds from the word, the reverse might also be true. Wherever the Spirit is, there is the Son and Father, and wherever the Son is, there is the Spirit and the Father.

A while ago, one of our Coptic scholars provided for us these beautiful translations from a tenth century Coptic abbott. Take a look at this:

This is a mystical understanding of the Trinity as Love and how the relationship of the hypostases represent that uncreated nature of Love. There is a "perichoresis" here that is very important to highlight. I think we cannot ignore this in our contemplation of the Trinity.

I am pretty sure if you read this, you might think this is what you have been saying all along. If an EO reads this, they will also say the same. So we need to take a step back rather than attacking each other to again ask and think deeply, "what do you mean".

There was this argument that if you were to say that the eternal origin of the Spirit is also from the Son, then that would make the Son "Father", not "Son". I think there is merit in that. This is an argument actually made by John of Damascus, in chapter 8 of his first book on the Orthodox Faith, way before the Filioque controversy blew up. So I think you need to take the quotes in context and not jump to conclusions on what this or that father meant.

Is there an eternal relationship? Yes. But is the Spirit eternally originate from the Son? I think you even agree that that is a big no no. I am under the impression that's what the Roman Catholic Church says, and I think that should be the end of the discussion.

Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

As you can see, Mina, the matter is resolved with those who admit (1) the Spirit proceeds eternally (which is what ekporeusis means) from the Father through the Son -

The problem is that the Latin creed specifically does NOT say per Filium but procedit EX patre filioque. Ex =/=Per. There's no way you can parse that to make them equivalent.

What cruelty -- trying to torture Xavier's answers into any kind of a straight shape.

Logged

"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue

Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Hello, Mina, thanks for the response. The linked article on perichoresis and Triune Love is beautiful. In the west, beginning with St. Augustine, it is common to contemplate the Holy Spirit as the Father's Spirit of Love eternally reposing in the beloved Son. The study notes: "The Father is love in its source (2 Cor 13:13; 1 Jn 4:8,16), the Son is "the Son that he loves" (Col 1:14). So a tradition dating back to St Augustine has seen in the Holy Spirit, through whom "God's love has been poured into our hearts" (Rom 5:5), love as the eternal Gift of the Father to his "beloved Son" (Mk 1:11; 9:7; Lk 20:13; Eph 1:6).11. The divine love which has its origin in the Father reposes in "the Son of his love" in order to exist consubstantially through the Son in the person of the Spirit, the Gift of love."

St. Augustine's teaching on this is well known and accordingly is cited there. That St. Gregory Palamas also mentions a Tradition of the Holy Spirit as connatural Love of the Father reposing (eternally?) in the Son, but as having this Spirit coming to Him from the Father, suggests Eastern Tradition has a place for it as well. "The Spirit of the most high Word is like an ineffable love of the Father for this Word ineffably generated. A love which this same Word and beloved Son of the Father entertains (crhtai) towards the Father: but insofar as he has the Spirit coming with him (sunproelqonta) from the Father and reposing connaturally in him" (Capita physica XXXVI, PG 150, 1144 D-1145 A).

I think this is possibly a way for a final future reconciliation between the Eastern and Western Traditions. You're probably right we ought to leave it at that for now. God bless.

Tzimis, right, light and heat come from the sun as the sun's own from which they come; i.e. as the Word and the Spirit are consubstantial with the Father, from Whom they eternally originate. We hold there is an eternal distinction of Person and an ordered relationship in the manner in which they come forth eternally from the Father; i.e. the Spirit comes eternally through the Son/Word. Analogously, heat through sunlight.

Scamandrius, in Latin, the Latin Fathers say the procession of the Holy Spirit is per Filium, ex Filio, Filioque etc. In Greek, we don't find a Father saying the ekporeumenon is from the Son. We do find Fathers saying ekporeumenon is from the Father through the Son. It suggests the Greek Fathers reserve the word ekporeumrnon to refer to the ultimate hypostatic origin from the Father. Per Filium and Filioque are used interchangeably in the Latin Fathers.

Edit: Pope St. Adrian expressly told Charlemagne the per Filium of St. Tarasius in Nicaea II was the same doctrine as Filioque.

« Last Edit: March 15, 2018, 02:54:38 AM by Xavier »

Logged

"My daughter, look at My Heart surrounded with thorns with which ungrateful men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You, at least, try to console Me, and say that I promise to assist at the hour of death, with all the graces necessary for salvation, all those who, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months go to confession and receive Holy Communion, recite five decades of the Rosary and keep Me company for a quarter of an hour" - The Theotokos to Sr. Lucia.

Scamandrius, in Latin, the Latin Fathers say the procession of the Holy Spirit is per Filium, ex Filio, Filioque etc. In Greek, we don't find a Father saying the ekporeumenon is from the Son. We do find Fathers saying ekporeumenon is from the Father through the Son. It suggests the Greek Fathers reserve the word ekporeumrnon to refer to the ultimate hypostatic origin from the Father. Per Filium and Filioque are used interchangeably in the Latin Fathers.

Which, if true, again just demonstrates how imprecise, unformed, and otherwise unsuited was this Western conception the Papacy rushed to interpolate into Christianity's most fundamental and hallowed conciliar document. For shame.

Logged

"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue

Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

St. Tarasius was manifestly expressing his agreement with the Latin Church in Nicaea II. An eternal spiration from the Father through the Son is still one eternal spiration, just like the Catholic Church formally defined later, with the approval of all 5 Patriarchs.

So rather, the question is why you are reluctant to confess (not necessarily in the creed, but only the doctrine) that the eternal Spirit of the eternal Father is also eternally in the eternally beloved Son Whom He loves with an everlasting, consubstantial Love. The Spirit is not in the Son temporally only; nor is He in the Son in the same way He dwells in us; He is in Him consubstantially or connaturally, reposes in and comes through Him from the Father eternally. Rome never asked for more at either Lyons II or Florence - the latter of which still has the signature of all 5 Patriarchs - than to confess the doctrine that the Spirit proceeds by one eternal spiration from the Father and the Son.

Logged

"My daughter, look at My Heart surrounded with thorns with which ungrateful men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You, at least, try to console Me, and say that I promise to assist at the hour of death, with all the graces necessary for salvation, all those who, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months go to confession and receive Holy Communion, recite five decades of the Rosary and keep Me company for a quarter of an hour" - The Theotokos to Sr. Lucia.

St. Tarasius was manifestly expressing his agreement with the Latin Church in Nicaea II. An eternal spiration from the Father through the Son is still one eternal spiration, just like the Catholic Church formally defined later, with the approval of all 5 Patriarchs.

So rather, the question is why you are reluctant to confess (not necessarily in the creed, but only the doctrine) that the eternal Spirit of the eternal Father is also eternally in the eternally beloved Son Whom He loves with an everlasting, consubstantial Love. The Spirit is not in the Son temporally only; nor is He in the Son in the same way He dwells in us; He is in Him consubstantially or connaturally, reposes in and comes through Him from the Father eternally. Rome never asked for more at either Lyons II or Florence - the latter of which still has the signature of all 5 Patriarchs - than to confess the doctrine that the Spirit proceeds by one eternal spiration from the Father and the Son.

You're entirely familiar with the orthodox, Orthodox position. You're also entirely apprised of the history as it really happened. Even I know this, and I'm not even that frequent a poster in this subforum. So at this point, your posts on the topic are analogous to a person with a toothache who can't stop touching the ache with his tongue. Or the proverbial dog that returns to his vomit. Setting aside the damnably circuitous, half-fact way in which you always do choose to post.

What would be the point of a reply?

Logged

"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue

Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Your understanding of the history, Porter, is not less wrong than your understanding of the theology. It's the Greek Church historically that had objections to St. Tarasius' per Filium clause, not the Latin Church. I'm going to leave you to be happy with your opinion. This will be my last post on this thread. Fare well.

Logged

"My daughter, look at My Heart surrounded with thorns with which ungrateful men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You, at least, try to console Me, and say that I promise to assist at the hour of death, with all the graces necessary for salvation, all those who, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months go to confession and receive Holy Communion, recite five decades of the Rosary and keep Me company for a quarter of an hour" - The Theotokos to Sr. Lucia.

Your understanding of the history, Porter, is not less wrong than your understanding of the theology. It's the Greek Church historically that had objections to St. Tarasius' per Filium clause, not the Latin Church. I'm going to leave you to be happy with your opinion. This will be my last post on this thread. Fare well.

But not without a final sly twist of the facts.

Logged

"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue

Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Hello, Mina, thanks for the response. The linked article on perichoresis and Triune Love is beautiful. In the west, beginning with St. Augustine, it is common to contemplate the Holy Spirit as the Father's Spirit of Love eternally reposing in the beloved Son. The study notes: "The Father is love in its source (2 Cor 13:13; 1 Jn 4:8,16), the Son is "the Son that he loves" (Col 1:14). So a tradition dating back to St Augustine has seen in the Holy Spirit, through whom "God's love has been poured into our hearts" (Rom 5:5), love as the eternal Gift of the Father to his "beloved Son" (Mk 1:11; 9:7; Lk 20:13; Eph 1:6).11. The divine love which has its origin in the Father reposes in "the Son of his love" in order to exist consubstantially through the Son in the person of the Spirit, the Gift of love."

St. Augustine's teaching on this is well known and accordingly is cited there. That St. Gregory Palamas also mentions a Tradition of the Holy Spirit as connatural Love of the Father reposing (eternally?) in the Son, but as having this Spirit coming to Him from the Father, suggests Eastern Tradition has a place for it as well. "The Spirit of the most high Word is like an ineffable love of the Father for this Word ineffably generated. A love which this same Word and beloved Son of the Father entertains (crhtai) towards the Father: but insofar as he has the Spirit coming with him (sunproelqonta) from the Father and reposing connaturally in him" (Capita physica XXXVI, PG 150, 1144 D-1145 A).

I think this is possibly a way for a final future reconciliation between the Eastern and Western Traditions. You're probably right we ought to leave it at that for now. God bless.

Tzimis, right, light and heat come from the sun as the sun's own from which they come; i.e. as the Word and the Spirit are consubstantial with the Father, from Whom they eternally originate. We hold there is an eternal distinction of Person and an ordered relationship in the manner in which they come forth eternally from the Father; i.e. the Spirit comes eternally through the Son/Word. Analogously, heat through sunlight.

Scamandrius, in Latin, the Latin Fathers say the procession of the Holy Spirit is per Filium, ex Filio, Filioque etc. In Greek, we don't find a Father saying the ekporeumenon is from the Son. We do find Fathers saying ekporeumenon is from the Father through the Son. It suggests the Greek Fathers reserve the word ekporeumrnon to refer to the ultimate hypostatic origin from the Father. Per Filium and Filioque are used interchangeably in the Latin Fathers.

Edit: Pope St. Adrian expressly told Charlemagne the per Filium of St. Tarasius in Nicaea II was the same doctrine as Filioque.

I don't believe the RCC would be happy with what you are saying here.

The 2nd Council of Lyons, 1274

"Constitution on the Procession of the Holy Spirit"

...we confess that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one; not by two spirations but by one.

"In the name of the holy Trinity, Father, Son and holy Spirit, we define, with the approval of this holy universal council of Florence, that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus shall all profess it: that the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration. We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the holy Spirit, just like the Father.

And since the Father gave to his only-begotten Son in begetting him everything the Father has, except to be the Father, so the Son has eternally from the Father, by whom he was eternally begotten, this also, namely that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son."

May I ask the following: What exactly is the difference between eternal relationship and temporal procession? I'm sorry for being ignorant in this regard, but I would like to more clearly understand such a difference.

Is the difference that the Father sends the Holy Spirit through the Son insofar as He was on Earth refers to temporal procession, and eternal relationship refers to a neverending sending of the Holy Spirit through the Son before the Baptism and even after the Ascension?

Your understanding of the history, Porter, is not less wrong than your understanding of the theology. It's the Greek Church historically that had objections to St. Tarasius' per Filium clause, not the Latin Church. I'm going to leave you to be happy with your opinion. This will be my last post on this thread. Fare well.

"In the name of the holy Trinity, Father, Son and holy Spirit, we define, with the approval of this holy universal council of Florence, that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus shall all profess it: that the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration. We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the holy Spirit, just like the Father.

And since the Father gave to his only-begotten Son in begetting him everything the Father has, except to be the Father, so the Son has eternally from the Father, by whom he was eternally begotten, this also, namely that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son."

May I ask the following: What exactly is the difference between eternal relationship and temporal procession? I'm sorry for being ignorant in this regard, but I would like to more clearly understand such a difference.

Is the difference that the Father sends the Holy Spirit through the Son insofar as He was on Earth refers to temporal procession, and eternal relationship refers to a neverending sending of the Holy Spirit through the Son before the Baptism and even after the Ascension?

May I ask the following: What exactly is the difference between eternal relationship and temporal procession? I'm sorry for being ignorant in this regard, but I would like to more clearly understand such a difference.

Is the difference that the Father sends the Holy Spirit through the Son insofar as He was on Earth refers to temporal procession, and eternal relationship refers to a neverending sending of the Holy Spirit through the Son before the Baptism and even after the Ascension?

I think that's right, yeah. "Through the Son" is really only true from our POV. Both are subordinate to the Father in role (not in ontology) eternally, but the Spirit is only subordinate to the Son in terms of the plan of salvation.

This is different from perichoresis, in which they all "dwell in" one another eternally.

Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Okay, and from reading through this discussion, my main problem which was admittedly confusing me was that I still not seen evidence that the ekporeumeonon you speak of refers to eternal procession. Can you cite your sources, other than stating that "ekporeumeonon refers to this?"

This was what was confusing me - because, from what I've understood in the conversation, it seems that Xavier has tried to equivocate temporal and eternal at several points, insofar as I've understood them, such that the definitions of both seemed muddied. Whenever I had read a Latin father or a Greek father discussing the Filioque, I've understood it in a temporal procession understanding.

As Saint Maximos says,"One relates to the theology [of the Trinity] and according to this, says 'the Holy Spirit also has his ekporeusis from the Son.'The other deals with the divine incarnation. With regard to the first matter, they [the Romans] have produced the unanimous evidence of the Latin Fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the study he made of the gospel of St John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit -- they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession -- but that they have manifested the procession through him and have thus shown the unity and identity of the essence.They [the Romans] have therefore been accused of precisely those things of which it would be wrong the accuse them, whereas the former [the Byzantines] have been accused of those things it has been quite correct to accuse them [Monothelitism]. In accordance with your request I have asked the Romans to translate what is peculiar to them (the 'also from the Son') in such a way that any obscurities that may result from it will be avoided. But since the practice of writing and sending [the synodal letters] has been observed, I wonder whether they will possibly agree to doing this. It is true, of course, that they cannot reproduce their idea in a language and in words that are foreign to them as they can in their mother-tongue, just as we too cannot do."

Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

St. Tarasius was manifestly expressing his agreement with the Latin Church in Nicaea II.

No, I think that is quite specious. There's no indication I have seen this was his intention. To say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son is the summary of Greek Patristic thought. Do you have any evidence to support this assertion?

An eternal spiration from the Father through the Son is still one eternal spiration, just like the Catholic Church formally defined later, with the approval of all 5 Patriarchs.

I would like to know to which council you are referring. If it was to Florence, the 3 Eastern Patriarchs not immediately present only provisionally accepted Florence until they could receive more details about the council. When they found out that it proclaimed the Filioque, they jointly wrote an encyclical rejecting the council. At any rate, Florence specifically contradicts the Greek Patristic understanding of "through the Son," by asserting that this wording makes the Son cause of the Holy Spirit.

So rather, the question is why you are reluctant to confess (not necessarily in the creed, but only the doctrine) that the eternal Spirit of the eternal Father is also eternally in the eternally beloved Son Whom He loves with an everlasting, consubstantial Love.

Nobody would hesitate to confess that. According to the maxim of St. John of Damascus, the Holy Spirit is "of the Son," but not "from the Son."

than to confess the doctrine that the Spirit proceeds by one eternal spiration from the Father and the Son.

But do you not see the terminological sleight of hand you have performed here? What has not been demonstrated is that the formula from the Father through the Son can be equated with one spiration from both.

Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.